the Ministers of the Reformation some there are of great zeale and learning such as haue suffred much for the puritie which they haue taught haue bene content with litle whereby they deserue great commendation Neither desire I any more but that still they may be more and more carefull for the peace of the Church for such contentions there haue bene euē among the Reformed as haue not greatly auailed to edification and herein I greatly commend Bucer yea and honor his ashes for he would neuer leane to any the partialities among the Reformed but bare him selfe quietly betweene both parts and neuer innouated any thing in the state of the Clergie Neither should we endeuor to triumph ouer our brethren but ouer our enemies For my part I would not seeke to triumph ouer the Clergie but ouer the Papacie which is the Beast ouer whom we are promised to triumph in the Reuelation And as for the Clergie I wish by reasonable offers and iust admonitions to induce them to participate with vs in the triumph ouer the Beast by renouncing her superstitions As for the English gouernment I say that it is grounded vpon Gods word so farre foorth as it concerneth the state of the Clergie instituted in the olde Testament and confirmed in the Newe And concerning the gouernment of the French Church so much as concerneth the equalitie of Ministers it hath the like foundation in Gods word namely in the example of the Apostles which may suffise to authorise both these formes of estate albeit in seuerall times and places None can denie but the Apostles among them selues were equall as concerning authoritie albeit there were an order for their presedence When the Apostles first planted the Church the same being small in affliction there were not as yet any other Bishops Priestes or Deacons but them selues they were the Bishops and Deacons and together serued the tables Those men therfore whom God raiseth vp to plant a Church can do no better then after the example of the Apostles to beare them selues in equall authoritie for this cause haue the French Ministers planters of the reformed Church in Fraunce vsurped it howbeit prouisionally for it is a matter auowed that they hold their discipline but by prouision reseruing libertie to alter it according to the accurrences But the equalitie that rested among the Bishops in the primitiue Church did increase as the Churches increased and thereof proceeded the creation of Deacons and afterward of other Bishops and Priests yet ceased not the Apostles equalitie in authoritie but they that were created had not like authoritie with the Apostles But the Apostles remained as soueraine Bishops neither was there any greater then they Hereof do I inferre that in the state of a mighty peaceable church as is the Church of England or as the Church of France or such like might be if God should call them to reformation the state of the Clergie ought to be preserued for equalitie would be hurtful to the state and in time breede confusion But as the Apostles continued in this perfect equalitie so long as their new planted Church was small so should equalitie be applied in the planting of a Church or so long as the Church continueth small or vnder persecution yet may it also be admitted as not repugnant to God word sith it hath takē place in the Church in those places where alreadie it is receaued rather then to innouate any thing I say therefore that euen in the Apostles time the state of the Clergie increased as the Church increased Neither was the gouernement vnder the bondage of Egypt during the peace of the land of Canaan alike for the Israelites had first Iudges and as their state increased they had Kings God him selfe likewise first dwelt as a shepheard in a Tabernacle built by Moses but afterward as a king in a house built by Salomon And the tree of life beareth twelue fruicts according to the twelue seasons of the yeare whereby we are taught that such as haue charge of the Lords garden must vse the fruictes thereof according to their seasons It is also to be thought that the Ministers of the Reformation which planted Reformation in Fraunce had respect to their businesse and to the worke they tooke in hand when they brought in this equalitie which was to plant a Church and to begin after the maner of the Apostles when they planted the Church at Hierusalem as also they meant not to reuerse the state of the Clergie either to submit it to their orders whensoeuer the Clergie or whole state of France should happen to admit Reformation But their purpose hath tended to ouerthrowe superstition and in the meane time to beare them selues according to their simple equalitie which in deede was the true meane to Reforme the Church whereas had they meant both to abolish superstition and to reuerse the state of the Clergie they should with one hand haue reformed the Church and with the other haue deformed the state And they that presumed that Reformation must needes subuert the state of the Clergie conceaued that foreiudgement out of season and without any sufficient cause their foreiudgement hath bred great calamities in Fraunce Wherupon I inferre that he which would take occasion of the equalitie brought in into Fraunce to reuerse the estate of the Episcopall Clergie among the Reformed shall greatly wrong the cause of those who therevnder haue reformed Fraunce and had neuer that intent as also they should resemble the dogges that would go into the vineyard but carie a yoke at their neckes that keepeth them out for they should carie with them the let that should hinder them from compassing their intents for there is nothing that hindereth from achiuing to perfection but it may be accomplished without preiudice to the state Iesus Christ taught perfection yet spake he neuer against the state but alwayes excepted it saying that these things we must do yet not leaue the others vndone neither can there be any good thing done with the ouerthrow of the state but may more commodiously be done without preiudice to the state And Christ when they came to tempt him excepted the state not onely in Ecclesiasticall causes but also in Ciuill saying Giue vnto Cesar that belongeth to Cesar and to God that belongeth to God as also he would take no notice of Ciuill iudgement when he was required to agree a man with his brother teaching vs by his example discretly to vse circumspection in time and place As also it were but a bad consequent to say there be abuses in the state and therefore we must subuert the state but it were a good consequent to say there be abuses in the state they must then be corrected albeit without preiudice to the state I say the reason is not altogether like when there be superstitions contrary to conscience for then must we forsake them and separate our selues therefro according to that which is
equall with him selfe I say then that the Ecclesiasticall dignities haue place euen to the highest but not vniuersall which vsurpeth dominion euen ouer kinges yea so farre forth as to dispose of their scepters and crownes and I will proue my saying thus The high Priesthood of Aaron was subiect to the iudgemēt seat of Moses and the kingdome of Iuda Also in the law which God set downe there was no Priesthood aboue the kinges and that by reason of the law sith that vnder the principalitie of Moses there was a high Priesthood therfore it followeth that vnder euery Christian soueraigne principalitie there should be a chief Bishop yet not so as to acknowledge any vniuersall Bishop Sith also that Iesus Christ would not ordeine any to be greatest among the Apostles it followeth that there ought not to be the greatest among the chief And Iesus Christ forbiddeth his Apostles to vsurpe dominion the vniuersall Bishopricke is therfore no lawfull order but a cōfusion engēdred by Babell If any mā will alledge the pretended donation of Constantine the great I aunswere that many impugne it as false besides that a couenant cā not be of any force to abuse or to vse it cōtrary to good maners as the Pope striueth to vphold superstition repugnant to all good maners and true godlinesse yea the ingratitude of the receauer of the donation maketh the donation voyde but the Popes haue practised all ingratitude against the Emperors procuring their subiectes many times to rebell prescribing their Empires working their deathes betraying of them as Fredericke Barbarossa was betrayed to the Turke and treading vpon their throates with such other ingratefull insolencies Againe the Emperour hath no authoritie in Fraunce he can not then giue the Pope any there In Fraunce Constantines authoritie is vnknowen neither doth any man giue that which he hath not nor can transferre any further right then his own But if he beare him selfe vpon the authoritie of Doctors I will alledge one Doctour euen S. Gregory who saith that the first that shall take vpon him to be vniuersall Bishop shall be the forerunner of Antichrist If they alledge the Coūcels I answere that some of them haue improued the Popes authoritie albeit some others assembled by the Popes driftes and practises haue approued it And admit the Councels had without contradiction approued it yet let vs looke whether their Decrees be grounded vpō Gods word for in that case we must obey them as also if they be not contrary to Gods word But Iesus Christ expressely forbiddeth such dominion then may no Councell authorise it For S. Paule saith that he may doe nothing contrary to the truth how then shall the Councels be of force against Christes expresse prohibition Againe in Fraunce the king hath the Ciuill dominion and the Parliamentes haue no dominion but the iurisdictiō likewise in England the Queene hath the dominion and the Bishops the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction But the authoritie which the Pope vsurpeth is a dominion which exalteth it selfe aboue kinges and therefore by Gods word expresly forbidden Thus hath the Pope no right neither any colour in Gods word neither is there any king or prince by Gods word subiect vnto him no not so much as any chief Bishop that is bound to acknowledge him But all kinges and soueraigne princes may in their kingdomes and principalities establish chief Bishops after the maner and example of England I haue before shewed that the state of the Clergie is no cause of our separation from those whom in Fraunce we call Catholickes and therefore the abuse may be thought to be the cause but it is not for there is no gouernement wherein there may not be abuse but the abuse simply it not sufficient cause of schisme We know that there was neuer any more excellent gouernement then the same which God established yet did the childrē of Hely the high Priest cōmit great abuses defiling the women appointed to watch the tabernacle against the peoples willes and contrary to the custome established in the law chusing such meates as they liked in the Priestes kettles The people cōplained hereof yet made they no schisme as in deede they ought not and now if we were to complaine of the Catholickes but for their simple abuses we should haue no cause to make any schisme well might we haue occasion to cōplaine yet not therefore to separate our selues It may be thought also that ceremonies are the cause of our separation from the Catholickes yet are they not so howbeit I make great difference betweene ceremonies and superstitions for superstition is forbidden by Gods word so are not ceremonies for there be three kindes of simple ceremonies one Legall an other Euangelicall and the third indifferent yet not contrary to the word of God The Legall are abolished as concerning the letter but doe remaine as concerning the spirite cōsidering that their truth is eternall abideth for euer as the word of God The Euangelicall as the Sacraments are necessarie And others there are which be indifferent as not forbiddē by the word of God for the which one should not condemne an other The same are such as are vsed in sundry Reformed places as in Englād Switzerland and els where In which ceremonies the Reformed faithfull ought to haue respect to modestie one to beare with an other according to the rule of S. Paul who saith Let not him that eateth not despise him that eateth and he that eateth let him not reproue him that eateth not that is to say let not one condemne an other True it is that there be foolish and trifling ceremonies as in Baptisme to put the spatle of the Priest into the childes mouth when as sometimes the Priest shall be halfe a lazare halfe rotten and haue rotten teeth or a stincking or corrupt breath which can not but be daungerous for the child and therefore vpon so villanous a custome the father may sometimes take occasion not to cleaue thereto as also there be garments which being worne vpon any signification and for distinction in callinges are ceremonies but if we attribute any vertue vnto them they be superstition The cause thē of our separation cōsisteth not in the state of the Clergie neither in the abuses nor in the ceremonies but in the superstition Superstition do I call all worshipping of false Gods false worshipping of the true God or euery worship contrary to the word of God As for the word superstition it is a Latin word and may be taken diuerslly It may be takē for that which in Latin is called Superstitum parentatio that is to say the suruiuours funerals there hence transferring it to any other false worship or rather super statutū cultum extranea prophana adiectio taking super in stead of praeter or contra which signifieth all worship that is added besides the same which God hath established The Greekes do call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the worshipping
and so he sheweth vs that to be partakers of both togither be two incompatible extremities To the end therefore to participate in the Lordes cup we are forced to separate our selues from the Pope who mainteineth the cup of deuils that is Idolatrie This then is the cause of our separation which who soeuer will iudge without passion I am assured will finde to be lawfull This is in deede the matter of our separation and not the simple abuses neither the ceremonies simply and much lesse the state of the Clergie for the which thinges there ought not to be any breach made in the Church well may we in modestie require the correction of the abuses when there be any yet not therefore make a schisme Concerning inuocation of Saincts that is yet an other kinde of superstition for this we know that all worship of God and deuine seruice is contained vnder these two kinds inuocation and thankesgiuing And this adoration or worship is so proper to God that it can not be transferred to any other as he sayth Thou shalt worship one God onely and him onely shalt thou serue which is that kind of adoration and worship that ought to be reserued to God onely and not transferred to others But in the religion tearmed Catholicke they do no lesse transferre thankesgiuing to the Saincts then inuocation for they make their vowes to Saincts and to pay vowes and oblations is to celebrate thankesgiuing and therefore it may be sayd that they transferre the whole worship vnto them and so do no longer worship one God onely neither serue him alone but as concerning worship and adoration do giue him as many companions as there be Sainctes whom they inuocate Besides that sometimes such a one is vpon earth inuoceted for a Sainct as in deede is broyled in hell fire so may they finde in hell some one whom they make a companion of God in respect of worship and adoration neither will I say that idoles being by S. Paules testimonie deuils the deuils do cause them selues to be worshipped as Sainctes in their steades Againe albeit it were not forbidden yet sith there is no commandement for it in the worde that worship can not be according to the faith which commeth of the hearing of the word and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as S. Paule witnesseth And there can be no hearing where there is neither cōmandement instruction exāple nor admonition But besides the commandement to worship and serue one God onely S. Paule reproueth the worshipping of Angels which is as much as to reproue the worshipping of Sainctes for they being the messengers of the will of God are comprised vnder the name of Angels as we see in Malachy who is called the Angell of the Lord. It is also written of Iohn Baptist I will send my Angell before thy face who shall prepare thy wayes And the seuen Bishops of the seuen Churches of Asia are called the seuen Angels of the seuen congregations with many such other examples infinitely to be found in the holy Scripture So that the Saincts being named Angels vnder the prohibition of the worship of Angels is contained the prohibition of the worship of Saincts The Angels also as S. Peter teacheth are greater then the Saincts and therefore if the worship of Angels who are greater then the Saincts be by S. Paule reproued how can the worshipping of images stand All such therefore is but vanitie and superstition and the forsaking of such matters is good so farre is the abandoning of them from being heresie True it is that some do bring in distinctions as thus That they call not vpon the Saincts for remission but for intercession whereto I answere that howsoeuer they call vpon them or with whatsoeuer title it be yet is inuocation still inuocation adoration and worship and so still forbidden by the commandement Thou shalt worship one God and him onely shalt thou serue neither can these distinctions take place vnlesse the holy Scripture did expresly propound them no more then the distinctiōs of honour latrie doulie or hyperdeulie And they be sufficiently confuted by denying onely because there is no such matter contained throughout the holy Scripture authenticall To be briefe we must call vpon God onely not vpon Saincts and to God only must we addresse our vowes not to Saincts Some may obiect that the Saincts in heauen do know what is done vpon earth yea and that they pray to God for vs. Wherto I answer that the Prophets being in the world knew the generall estate of the Church and do better know it in heauen but they are no searchers of the hearts for that is proper to God only And S. Paule saith that no man knoweth what is in man but the spirit of man which is in man himselfe wherefore the spirits of men which are in heauen do not know what is in the spirit or heart of man that is vpon earth But he that is a Mediator must know his heart intent for whom he intreateth I will not denie but charitie may moue them to pray for vs yet do hit not follow thereof that we should call vpon them sith we haue no such commandement As for prayer for the dead and the doctrine of Purgatorie it hath foundation but vpon the second booke of Machabees the sixt booke of Virgils Aeneides and Homer Which be very weake props to hold vp so heauie a building They giue vs other pretences but in vayne sith that as Salomon testifieth whē the dust returneth to the dust the spirite returneth to God that gaue it which sheweth that when man dyeth his spirite returneth to God of him to receaue his iudgemēt which being pronounced there is no appeale neither are there but two wayes the broad and the narrow two gates the wide and the streight and two issues life and death So as there is no voyde place betweene to build Purgatorie vpon One point there is which is that the rentes that are giuen to pray for the dead might be conuerted to the instruction of the people and to pray for the saluation of the suruiuors their successours for so might that which hath bene giuen to a superstitious vse be conuerted to a lawfull and godly vse following the example of censers of Chore his partakers which hauing bene offered for a conspiracie were afterward conuerted into golden plates vpon the altar of the Lord. Neither can the doctrine of transubstantiation be admitted because it standeth not with any deuine reason that an earthly thing should be transubstantiated into a heauēly that is earthly bread into heauenly bread For if the bread be transubstantiated into Christes body then should Christes body be likewise transubstantiated into a dead and earthly bread dispoiled of his qualities and powers Now there is nothing that letteth vs but that we may eate Christes body clothed with all his qualities and powers without subiecting